Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Anyway, back to the original thread.

I've just been listening to the Willie Dixon tracks, "You need love" and "Bring it on home" and they are more or less "Whole lot of love" and "Bring it on home"

5 feet between each house - welcome to Margaret Thatcher's tory vision of the future for house building in the UK way before Tony Blair thought about standing for office. Thanks to her you can have a detatched house within touching distance of your neighbour's one.

Regardless of the ethics issues, LZ remain iconic in the world of rock music. For a very long time, no band was more larger than life or more popular.

John Bonham and Jimmy Page continue to influence players, some 25 years after the untimely passing of Bonham and LZ's demise.

I was never (and am still not) a big LZ fan, but it's hard to ignore the impact they had on hard rock and music in general.

Can't dispute that Thomas but it the facts support that they did much of it, at least initially, with stolen music. That is a very sad commentary on a group of rock musicians who achieved legendary status.

Well, after giving this some thought, I have to say: music belongs to everybody, if not nobody. It's filthy lucre that's to blame for most of the inequity in the world...

IMHO, of course (which hardly warrants mentioning)...

Well, I imagine I'll be pissing in the wind, but for as much as Page gets slammed for theft (and some of it is justified), he's not the only one. In blues circles, Willie Dixon was very well known for the exact same thing, so he's certainly not one to be held up as a victim. The Small Faces (IIRC) used Dixon's You Need Love as the basis for their own tune of the same name and gave writing credit to Marroitt & Lane, as far as I remember. Were they sued? If not (and I've never heard they were), what's the difference? Ahh, let's see....lots of money would be the prime difference. You'll have to forgive me - I have Dixon's version but haven't listened in a long time, but I don't recall a bigger similarity than those of the lyrics, and that's down to Robert Plant. Of course, if you want to argue that the music is a lift, then you'd have to spend an eternity arguing a cross section of all the blues, since there are infinite examples of that, given the nature of the form (i.e. relatively limited, although I realize it's not *all* simply I-IV-V).

Remember too that Zeppelin's main reason for their initial success was on the back of their live shows. Page was known for the Yardbirds, but they were considered passe by then. They also didn't release singles (at least, not authorized), so it's not like they were holding up WWL, Stairway, etc. as their prime offerings. In other words, compare their total output to the number of songs they're purported to have lifted lock, stock & barrel.

Again, as I've said, Page should take some criticism for his actions, but most of the egregious examples come from their early career, and they were under the gun to release product at that time. For the first album, they had a previously booked Yardbirds tour to honour, and for the second, they still didn't have the clout to tell Atlantic to sod off and wait until they were good and ready. Not saying this as an excuse, just sayin'.

edit -

[5 feet between each house - welcome to Margaret Thatcher's tory vision of the future for house building in the UK way before Tony Blair thought about standing for office. Thanks to her you can have a detatched house within touching distance of your neighbour's one.]

Makes me think of an old Genesis tune - was it Get 'Em Out By Friday?

It was indeed, Christopher...the "Winkler" is alive and well...not to mention "the Directors of Genetic Control"...

Christopher, if you'd please direct us to the website where Willie Dixon's alleged thefts have been documented, I'd sure like to see it. Because this is the first time I've heard them.

>>The Small Faces (IIRC) used Dixon's You Need Love as the basis for their own tune of the same name and gave writing credit to Marroitt & Lane, as far as I remember.<<

As a "basis" for a song...can you be more specific? And how many tunes are in question with the SF? Remember, Page is accused of not just swiping one song, but multiple songs (three or more), and in more than one case not just a tune but words and the tune. And in at least one case, the original artist's arrangement.

Plus, Page has been tried and found guilty. For a guy who was as successful as he was, and who was apparently guilt free over stuff like this, what's amazing is most of his fans aren't even aware of the thefts (and alleged thefts.)

>>Regardless of the ethics issues, LZ remain iconic in the world of rock music. For a very long time, no band was more larger than life or more popular. <<

Yeah, and how much of that has to do with how much they swiped?

If you subtract the songs they're accused of ripping off (with pretty good evidence for conviction, if they haven't already been convicted because in some cases they have) LZ stacks up pretty poorly compared to some gigantic hit making machines that were peers of theirs back in the day, acts that far as I know, no one has accused of stealing words or music for even one song.

The Elton John Band is one. And Fleetwood Mac had the biggest selling album of that decade, by millions.

[Christopher, if you'd please direct us]

"Us"? Am I before the court here?

[to the website where Willie Dixon's alleged thefts have been documented, I'd sure like to see it.]

Well, there is no "it" - I guess there hasn't been one bitter person with time and an agenda to do all the grunt work like Will Shade has. Could also be that bluesmen take a bit more of a casual stance when it comes to credits/ripoffs than the R&R crowd, and that could be because it was so very prevalent in their day. Could also be they're not as 'net savvy.

[Because this is the first time I've heard them.]

Well, I hope you'll forgive me for not rivalling the massive tome that Mr. Shade has put together, as I work between 12-15 hours a day, not to mention I don't have quite the zeal that he does for showing up other folks favourites. Here's a couple things I did find though:

http://www.newyorkguitarfestival.org/cg ... D=201&mh=1

From the above link, right beside the Harry Manx photo is the first inkling of what I'd pointed out.

and:

http://www.rickieleejones.com/friends/quebeccity.htm

The relevant paragraph is not far from the beginning of the article. You may not have heard of him, but you've probably heard of the next "guy":

http://www.guitarworld.com/allaccess/in ... dyguy.html

It's about halfway down (a heads up - there's some foul language, so don't read it to your kids!).

The following has a passing mention of Willie Dixon (it's a discussion about Bob Dylan's latest *cough* original work, but brings up a few other things that are just plain interesting)

http://ilx.wh3rd.net/thread.php?msgid=7252311

A couple Zep fan created sites that discuss the same thing as Will Shade, but without the (*IMO*) prejudice:

http://www.iem.ac.ru/zeppelin/docs/FAQ.html#18

http://www.led-zeppelin.org/reference/i ... =assorted3

More stuff here:

http://download.nowis.com/index.cfm?phi ... =text/html

Be forewarned there is political content if you start from the very beginning. The relevant stuff is in the sections titled "BORROWING FROM THE PAST" and "WHO STOLE THE SOUL?".

http://www.illegal-art.org/audio/historic.html

At the bottom of the above link you'll find Muddy's recording of Dixon's You Need Love. The lyrics are an obvious lift (Plant talks about that in one of the Zepfan links I gave earlier). Musically - it's a *very* tenuous argument to say that Page's WLL riff is a rip of Dixon's music. By the way, did ya notice where it says Willie never got any money from Muddy for this tune either? The lines get more and more blurry, don't they?

There's probably oodles more written about the blues "traditions" - I'm sure you can find more about it if you're so inclined. Me - I gotta get to sleep pretty soon.

[>>The Small Faces (IIRC) used Dixon's You Need Love as the basis for their own tune of the same name and gave writing credit to Marroitt & Lane, as far as I remember.<<

As a "basis" for a song...can you be more specific?]

http://starling.rinet.ru/music/smallf.htm

Under the review for their first album is a mention of Small Faces version. A long time ago I read an interview with one of the guys from the band, but I can't remember who it was, and I can't find it right now. If you *really* want to read about it from the horse's mouth, I suppose I could track it down eventually.

[And how many tunes are in question with the SF?]

Just the one as far as I know - I'm not a fan or scholar of the band. But the possible breadth of their credit mishaps wasn't my point anyway. My point was the selective application of the copyright actions - since Dixon had the ability to sue Zeppelin, what prevented him from doing the same with the other fellas?

[Remember, Page is accused of not just swiping one song, but multiple songs (three or more),]

Yup, he's accused of these things. In some cases, I absolutely agree - but then again, I stated that right from the start. Other instances are tenuous at best, quite possibly to pad the case of those making the accusations. But, of course, the more you look into the subject, the more you see that Zeppelin certainly wasn't the only one to so this (and I'm not even talking about the blues - in certain eras it's akin to musical incest!). Others may have been a bit more subtle, or under the radar, but it did/does happen. And no, I'm not talking about marginal artists like 1910 Fruitgum Co., but rather classic rock artists.

[and in more than one case not just a tune but words and the tune. And in at least one case, the original artist's arrangement.]

Which ones are those? And by the way, have you made side by side comparisons for Will Shade's allegations? I have. As an aside, it's kinda interesting how he gives a pass to others that are just as guilty of the alleged theft (D&C was originally *The Yardbirds* ripping Jake Homes, but good ol' Will likes the other boys in the band, so he soft peddles that). He gives the band a pass for Rack My Mind too - a pre-Page Yardbirds "original". As an aside: a quick glimpse of Shade's method (from his site):

"Back to the Yardbirds though. Page turned their offer down, preferring the steady paycheck from his session work."

This is incorrect according to Page in interviews (unless Will was there in the early '60's, *and* able to get inside Page's mind, we'll have to go by what Page has said). He actually turned them down mainly because he didn't want to get into the sticky situation of taking the spot vacated by his friend (Clapton) who was obviously unhappy with band. Of course, Shade sets it up in the reader's mind that Page's main motivation was money (if that was true, why did he give up his lucrative and easy session gig to later join the band when they were in decline commercially?), and thus the subconscious link is made that this guy will do anything to make a buck, such as rip off old blues artists.

and:

"Another Little Games album track, the modish "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor" opens with a guitar riff that Page would later use as the opening chords on Led Zeppelin's "The Rain Song." Yes, it is his music, but his proclivity for recycling his own and others work shows a distinct lack of originality."

As always, make the comparison yourself (and perhaps laugh along with me at Mr. Shade!).

[Plus, Page has been tried and found guilty.]

Whhaaat?! you mean Page went before a jury and/or judge, had a full trial, and was found guilty?? I didn't know that!! Or, perhaps you mean he/they settled out of court, which you *naturally* know is a different thing altogether. One of those links (the one with political content) talks in some detail about how complicated copyright law and application is, so that's something to consider. Also consider the fact that these guys liked and admired the bluesmen, so they might've had no problem settling up (sounds that way if you read what Plant has said about it). Now, if they *truly* had nefarious intentions, they wouldn't have given the relevant artists *any* credits for songs, but they in fact did (and I'm talking about the original releases, not the revised re-releases).

[For a guy who was as successful as he was, and who was apparently guilt free over stuff like this,]

Don't exactly know what you mean by that.

[what's amazing is most of his fans aren't even aware of the thefts (and alleged thefts.)]

By now you're probably willing to admit you're wrong about that, huh? By the way, I do like the word "alleged" - it's kind of appropriate here.

[ >>Regardless of the ethics issues, LZ remain iconic in the world of rock music. For a very long time, no band was more larger than life or more popular. <<

Yeah, and how much of that has to do with how much they swiped?]

Believe it or not - not much. For the more dedicated fans, they don't hang their fandom on Whole Lotta Love or Stairway (to namedrop the obvious examples). Heck, the really hardcore don't even point first to the albums, but rather to their live shows (being one of the most bootlegged acts ever, there's a lot available). For me, their best songs are things like In The Light, Carouselambra, Achilles Last Stand, The Ocean - that sorta thing. For the casual fan, they probably do like mainly the radio tunes (obviously, I guess), but those people, IMO, wouldn't give a hoot about songwriting credits and the like. They probably don't even know or care who the band members are (and wouldn't have much luck Googling, since they'd spell it "Zeplin"). Do you honestly believe those people would like Muddy's version of You Need Love (unpaid for) to Whole Lotta Love? And, if they heard the allegations, would give up their Zeppelin Best Of CD?

[If you subtract the songs they're accused of ripping off (with pretty good evidence for conviction, if they haven't already been convicted because in some cases they have)]

Kind of an arbitrary thing - besides you and Will Shade, who gets to decide? BTW - there's that misused *convicted* line of thought again.

[LZ stacks up pretty poorly compared to some gigantic hit making machines that were peers of theirs back in the day,]

Well, that's a matter of opinion (besides, LZ were never a "hit making machine" - they opposed releasing singles), but more importantly, who cares? First of all, it's not a competition, and secondly, if you want to use that criteria, then Mariah Carey and The Spice Girls are some of the greatest and most important artists of all time.

[acts that far as I know, no one has accused of stealing words or music for even one song.]

As far as you know.

[The Elton John Band is one. And Fleetwood Mac had the biggest selling album of that decade, by millions.]

Yeah, they're both not bad, although EJ *really* went flaccid a long time ago. I assume you're referring to Rumours (which has some great tunes on it). I'll take your word for it that it was the biggest album of the '70's - I do remember the fuss after it was released, and the even bigger anticipation of those waiting for their next release (Tusk, wasn't it?). I'm not one, but there are many who lambast that lineup for not being the "true" Fleetwood Mac. I know what they mean, but don't agree. Just throwing that out there. But while Rumours *may* have been the best selling album of the '70's, it's topped by Zep IV when talking about best selling of all time, so that must mean that FM's album sold well for it's time, but didn't sustain, while IV did. By the way, did yo know that when In Through The Out Door was released, it was credited with saving the recording industry from a massive slump, and dragged their *whole* back catalogue into the Top 200 (never done before or since)? I'm not sure you can attribute that to some alleged lifts earl in their career.

And as to how this all started - I've never really understood the phenomenon of jumping into a thread to denigrate the artist that the originator probably likes (also known as "thread crapping"). What precisely is the objective of that? Those that don't like, in this case, Page and/or Zep, well...you'd be preaching to the choir. And for those that *do*, would you be trying to save them from themselves? Is the aim to get Jimmy Page fans to throw away their collections, or maybe to dissuade future CD sales on moral grounds? I'm genuinely curious - as far as I can recall, anytime I've seen a thread about an artist I don't like (and there are many), I've either read it without comment, or ignored it altogether.

I'm also curious - what would your favourite band be? The reason I ask is that I'm wondering if they have any moral, ethical etc. question marks in their character, and if so, would you cease to be a fan because of it? For me, it's all about the sounds put down on tape that attracts me to an artist or band, and I *love* the sounds Zeppelin put down, in the studio and on the stage.

Page did go to court. And if he settled out of court, what do you think that means? He was innocent?

I don't follow sales, though I know for many years Rumors was said by many to be the best selling album of the 70s ( others may have outsold it after the 70s ended.) Someone told me Kid Rock has the best selling album ever, topping all the Beatles releases. Nothing would surprise me.

As for Page and this subject, I think this would make a great documentary. Play the cuts, examine the lyrics, get some different opinions and let the audience decide. A doc. could do this better than any print story.

I don't have a favorite band. I love tons of bands and solo artists. As for any of their ethical questions marks, it would depend on how many and how substantial they'd appear to be. It certainly would affect my opinion of them as it has in the case of Page and Zep.

Conversely it also makes me think more of a band like Cream, another "blues based" act that gave full credit for Crossroads to the writer, even though their rendition is a radical departure from the original (far, far more so than any of the renditions Zep's accused of ripping), and they did it before Zep even existed.

I like Zep very much (enough to buy all of their albums), & I like the blues artists they stole from for the most part.
Was it wrong to not give credit & royalties: yes.
Is the music still good: yes.

Ethnic groups have never been credited enough for their influences of other artists in any field or genre at any time as I see it.
The best way to try & balance this issue from an individual's standpoint is to buy the recordings/art of said ethnic artists.

[Page did go to court. And if he settled out of court, what do you think that means? He was innocent?]

Page went to court? Can you give me a cite for that? As for the second question - *Zeppelin* settled out of court. As I said, Plant had alot of culpability because of lyrics. But of course, there's quite a bit of info in those links I provided as far as others doing the same thing. I'm assuming you checked them out, although you haven't addressed most of my points. Kinda disappointing, given the effort I put into it.

[I don't follow sales, though I know for many years Rumors was said by many to be the best selling album of the 70s]

You stated it as fact the first time - now you're saying you just took someone else's word for it?

[As for Page and this subject, I think this would make a great documentary. Play the cuts, examine the lyrics, get some different opinions and let the audience decide. A doc. could do this better than any print story.]

Not necessary - it isn't easy to find, but in less than an hour I roped together some info about Dixon and linked it for you (as you requested). As for the songs in question - they're readily available for anyone to listen to. I'd done it long ago.

[(far, far more so than any of the renditions Zep's accused of ripping)]

Again, have you made the comparisons yourself?

It's not really worth my while if I'm going to type up all the stuff I did only to have no response to most of it. And BTW - since Zep *did* give Dixon a writing credit long ago as well as a generous settlement (which Plant has said he was happy to do) in regards to WLL/YNL (another BTW - Page had the riff before any lyrics were put down by Plant, according to Plant himself), does it still constitute theft? At what point does the lack of "forgiveness" become just a grudge?

[Was it wrong to not give credit & royalties: yes.]

Yup, like I said much earlier, I agree. But after they did, the argument tends to loose steam (or at least it should, unless it's just to have an axe to grind). Still no finger wagging about Willie's own practices though - not sure why. I guess Buddy Guy gets no love.

[Ethnic groups have never been credited enough for their influences of other artists in any field or genre at any time as I see it.]

That's probably true, but I'm not sure that's necessarily relevant here, since we're talking British musicians in the '60's who admired the bluesmen, who were primarily black. I suppose a point could be made that they were *really* treated badly in their own country, but that would veer off pretty sharply into something else,I think. Besides, it doesn't really account for those same folks stealing from each other, which is a pretty important point.

As for buying the artists product, I agree. I'll bet that Page and Plant are among the crowd that did just that. Going by the Zepfan sites I've frequented, I'd say it's a safe bet that a whole lotta fans did the same (myself included), so that's a positive, I guess.

Boy, that was a lot of verbage on both sides of the issue...not sure what (if anything) can or should be added...

...except to say that, setting aside for a moment whether he should have been paid (which of course is the case), I'll bet Willie Dixon would much rather have listened to Led Zep than to Elton John or (shudder) Fleetwood Mac...

Just speculating, admittedly, but try picturing Willie tapping his foot along to "Rhiannon" or "Crocodile Rock"...makes me laugh 'til the tears run down my leg.

Pretty much my point. Buy what you like, find out where it came from (inspiration, what have you), buy that, & so on.
Mozart admitted stealing ideas, so no music is totally original.
If you're going to blame one guy, get ready to blame everybody!
Or not & just enjoy the tunes.
That's what I'll do!

>>Page went to court? Can you give me a cite for that?<<

From the Fender Player's Club Page (www.fenderplayersclub.com/artists_lounge/featured_artists/led_zeppelin.htm):

The first album is perhaps the best example of this, with its two Willie Dixon songs ("You Shook Me" and "I Can't Quit You Baby"). It's interesting to note that Dixon sued the group - and won - for infringement on the song "Whole Lotta Love" on the second album, copped from his song "You Need Love."

So, there you go. Page was sued and lost over 20 years ago. And it's been no secret ever since.

>>Again, as I've said, Page should take some criticism for his actions, but most of the egregious examples come from their early career, and they were under the gun to release product at that time.<<

This is just my opinion, but I think this is an absurd statement. After all, what band that has an album due isn't under the gun to release product? And if they are, does that mean if they don't have them written themselves they should be allowed to rip 'em?

What Page did, multiple times, is like Lennon and McCartney crediting themselves with their version of Rock 'N Roll music. That, too, they tracked early in their career, when they were under the gun to produce two lps and multiple singles a year.

What's more, most bands don't have trouble coming up with the tunes for their first album or two. They either include credited covers or have enough of their own material, usually built up, from years of having been unsigned and not releasing albums.

>>You stated it as fact the first time - now you're saying you just took someone else's word for it? <<

Last I checked, this was a Jimmy Page thread. But if you want the exact totals or Fleetwood Mac's sales in the 70s, I'm sure they're available. But it seems to me to be kind of far off base from the subject as, last I checked, FW Mac has not been accused of theft.

I've read in numerous places (not the least of which is this week's issue of Time Out NY, in an article on Lindsay Buckingham's new release) that Rumors was the best selling non-greatest hits album of the 70s, that it sold in excess of 17 but not more than 20 million copies in the US alone inside of two years (perhaps held the title of best selling LP until Thriller. But that's conjecture on my part.)